Appendix B

Public and Agency Involvement 

Summary Report 

April 2021

Public and Agency Involvement 

Summary Report

Prepared by

April 2021 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

iii

Contents

Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. v

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Distribution of the Tier 1 DEIS ............................................................................................. 2-1

3 DEIS Public Hearings ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Purpose and Format ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Notification ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Participation..................................................................................................................... 3-2

4 Additional Public Outreach Activities................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Online Open House.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Online Open House Format............................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Informational Table Events.............................................................................................. 4-1

5 Tier 1 DEIS Comments and Responses.................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Summary of Comments................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Key Comment Topics ....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Support for Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative...................................... 5-1

5.2.2 Frequency, Schedule and Reliability ................................................................... 5-2

5.2.3 Technology, Innovation, Implementation and “Phase-ability” .......................... 5-2

5.2.4 Funding and Cost ................................................................................................ 5-3

5.2.5 Station Locations and Expanding Service ........................................................... 5-3

5.2.6 High Speed and Speed ........................................................................................ 5-4

5.2.7 Ridership and Capacity ....................................................................................... 5-5

5.2.8 Support for Alternative 2.................................................................................... 5-5

5.3 Additional Comment Themes.......................................................................................... 5-5

5.4 Agency and Organization Comments .............................................................................. 5-6

5.4.1 Agency Comments.............................................................................................. 5-6

5.4.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency............................................................... 5-7

5.4.3 U.S. Department of the Interior.......................................................................... 5-7

5.4.4 Oregon Department of State Lands.................................................................... 5-7

5.4.5 WSDOT Rail, Freight and Ports Division.............................................................. 5-7

5.4.6 Travel Oregon ..................................................................................................... 5-8

5.4.7 City of Eugene..................................................................................................... 5-8

5.4.8 Tangent City Council ........................................................................................... 5-8

5.4.9 Organization Comments..................................................................................... 5-8

5.4.10 Oregon Environmental Council........................................................................... 5-8

5.4.11 The University of Oregon.................................................................................... 5-9

5.4.12 Hector Campbell Neighborhood Association ..................................................... 5-9

5.4.13 Concordia Neighborhood Association ................................................................ 5-9

5.5 Summary of Responses.................................................................................................... 5-9

Attachments

1 Public Meeting Information

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

v 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACT Area Commission on Transportation

AORTA Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DOI (U.S.) Department of the Interior

EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

I-5 Interstate 5

mph miles per hour

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

ODSL Oregon Department of State Lands

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

CHAPTER 1 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

1-1 

Introduction

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

released the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Oregon Passenger Rail Project 

(Project) in October 2018. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register (FR) on October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53053). Stakeholders were 

encouraged to provide comments on the Tier 1 DEIS through various opportunities from October 18 

through December 19, 2018.

During the public comment period, ODOT and FRA received a total of 212 comments from members of 

the public and agency/organization representatives at five (5) public events, through the Project 

website, and by email and letter.

Project stakeholders and the general public were provided with a detailed description of the Preferred 

Alternative for the Project and the findings included in the Tier 1 DEIS. During the public comment 

period, there were several opportunities for Project stakeholders and the general public to ask 

questions and provide formal comment on the Tier 1 DEIS findings.

This report includes a summary of the outreach and public comments received through the following 

forums and events:

• In-person open houses and public hearing events in five locations along the Project corridor in

November and December 2018.

• Online open house from November 28 to December 18, 2018.

• Comments received through the website comment form and emails during the outreach period.

• Informational tables set up at Eugene Saturday Market, Salem Station 100 Year Anniversary event,

and Union Station in Portland in September and October 2018.

• Letters and emails received by the Project team between October 18 and December 19, 2018.

CHAPTER 2 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

2-1 

Distribution of the Tier 1 DEIS 

The distribution of the Oregon Passenger Rail Project DEIS emphasized the use of electronic media to 

provide cost-effective access to the public and interested parties. This Tier 1 DEIS was available on the 

internet on the ODOT Oregon Passenger Rail Project website (http://www.oregonpassengerrail.org) and 

on the FRA website (http://www.fra.dot.gov/).

All persons, agencies, and organizations listed below were informed of the availability of, and locations 

to obtain, the DEIS, as well as the timing of the 60-day formal comment period. A Notice of Availability 

of the DEIS was included in the Federal Register.

Federal agencies, Native American tribes, state agencies, regional and local agencies, and the other 

selected interested parties and organizations listed below were sent a link to the electronic copy of the 

DEIS via e-mail. Additional local elected officials and agency representatives, along with others on the 

mailing list (approximately 3,700 contacts), were mailed a notification that included information about 

how to access the DEIS, timing for the formal DEIS comment period, and public hearing dates, times, and 

locations.

Federal Agencies:

• Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

• Federal Highway Administration

• Federal Railroad Administration

• Federal Transit Administration

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries

• U.S. Coast Guard

• U.S. Department of Agriculture

• U.S. Department of Commerce

• U.S. Department of Energy

• U.S. Department of Interior

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Native American Tribes:

• Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

• Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon

• Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation

• Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

• Cowlitz Indian Tribe

Oregon State Agencies:

• Business Oregon

• Office of the Governor

• Oregon Department of Administrative Services

• Oregon Department of Agriculture

• Oregon Department of Energy
APRIL 2021 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

2-2 

• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

• Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

• Oregon Department of State Lands

• Oregon Department of Transportation

• Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

• Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

• Oregon Transportation Commission

• Oregon Water Resources Department

• Public Utilities Commission

• Travel Oregon

Regional and Local Agencies:

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs):

• Albany Area MPO

• Cascades West ACT

• Central Lane MPO

• Corvallis Area MPO

• Lane ACT

• Metro

• Mid-Willamette Valley ACT and Council of Governments

Counties/Cities:

• Benton County/Adair Village, Corvallis, Monroe

• Clackamas County/Canby, Gladstone, Johnson City, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City,

Rivergrove, West Linn, Wilsonville

• Lane County/Coburg, Eugene, Junction City, Springfield

• Linn County/Albany, Brownsville, Halsey, Harrisburg, Lebanon, Millersburg, Tangent

• Marion County/Aumsville, Aurora, Donald, Gervais, Hubbard, Jefferson, Keizer, Mt. Angel, St. Paul,

Salem, Silverton, Stayton, Sublimity, Turner, Woodburn

• Multnomah County/Fairview, Gresham, Maywood Park, Portland, Troutdale

• Polk County/Dallas, Independence, Monmouth

• Washington County/Durham, Hillsboro, King City, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin

• Yamhill County/Amity, Dayton, Dundee, Lafayette, McMinnville, Newberg

Other Agencies:

• Lane Transit District

• Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance

• Port of Portland

• Salem-Keizer Transit

• SMART Transit

• South Clackamas Transportation District

• TriMet

• Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

2-3 

During the public comment period, Project stakeholders and the general public were able to review hard 

copies of the Tier 1 DEIS at multiple locations throughout the Project corridor and during the public 

hearings held for the project in November and December 2018. Copies of the Tier 1 DEIS were available 

at the following locations:

Oregon Department of Transportation

ODOT Region 1 Office 

123 NW Flanders Street 

Portland, OR 97209

Oregon Department of Transportation

Transportation Building 

355 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301 

Eugene Public Library

Downtown Library 

100 W. 10th Avenue

Eugene, OR 97401

Albany Public Library

2450 14th Avenue SE 

Albany, Oregon 97322

Albany City Hall

333 Broadalbin Street, SW 

Albany, OR 97321

Salem Public Library

585 Liberty Street SE 

Salem, OR 97301

Oregon City Public Library

606 John Adams Street 

Oregon City, OR 97045

Multnomah County Central Library

801 SW 10th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97205

CHAPTER 3 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

3-1 

DEIS Public Hearings

ODOT and FRA held a series of five open houses/public hearings in November and December 2018 in the 

following locations:

• Portland – November 28, 2018, ODOT Region 1 – 123 Flanders St., Portland

• Oregon City – November 29, 2018, Pioneer Community Center – 615 5th St., Oregon City

• Albany – December 4, 2018, Linn Benton Community College – 6500 Pacific Blvd. SW, Albany

• Salem – December 5, 2018, Pringle Hall – 606 Church St. SE, Salem

• Eugene – December 6, 2018, Main Public Library – 100 W 10th Ave., Eugene

Materials used for the public hearings are included in this appendix as Attachment 1.

3.1 Purpose and Format

The purpose of these events was to provide the public information presented in the Tier 1 DEIS in a 

drop-in style format involving display boards, a presentation by members of the Project team and an 

opportunity for interested persons to give verbal or written testimony.

Attendees received informational handouts about the Tier 1 DEIS findings as well as a public comment 

card. Participants were encouraged to review the information presented at the open house and discuss 

the findings with the several Project team members (i.e., ODOT and FRA staff and consultants) who 

attended the events. At each event, a presentation highlighted the results of the Tier 1 DEIS.

A Spanish-language interpreter was available at each meeting to interpret the informational displays, 

presentation, and attendee questions or comments.

At each event, there was an opportunity for attendees to give verbal testimony to a representative from 

FRA or ODOT, documented by a court reporter, or one-on-one with the court reporter.

3.2 Notification

The Project team used the following forms of notification to invite people to participate in the public 

events:

• Newsletter – mailed and emailed to 5,360 contacts in the Project’s stakeholder database on

October 19, 2018.

• Website announcement – posted on October 19, 2018 with ways to comment, event dates and

locations.

• Media release – distributed on October 19 and November 19, 2018 with ways to comment,

including event dates and locations.

• Community events – tables at the Salem Station 100 Year Anniversary Event on September 25,

2018, in Eugene at the Saturday Market on October 20, 2018, and in Portland at Union Station on

October 23, 2018.

• Newspaper ads – there were ads in local newspapers and on a Spanish-language radio channel one

week in advance of each meeting. Additionally, the Project team contacted community newsletters

at the time of the first media release. Newspapers and newsletters included The Oregonian,

Clackamas/Oregon City News, Statesman Journal (Salem region), Albany Democrat-Herald, Lebanon

Express, Corvallis Gazette-Times (Lee Enterprises) and The Register-Guard (Eugene region). La

Pantera radio channel played Spanish ads a total of 40 times during the dates of the public events.
APRIL 2021 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

3-2 

• Social media – the Project team posted about the five (5) open house/public hearing events and the

online open house on ODOT’s and Amtrak’s Facebook and Twitter accounts between October 19

and December 18, 2018.

• Posters – displayed posters in train stations along the corridor.

• Reddit – submitted two posts to the Salem and Eugene subreddits prior to the open houses and

public hearing events.

3.3 Participation

Of the 176 people who attended the open house and public hearing events, 51 provided input using the 

comment forms and nine (9) gave verbal testimony. Attendance at each event was as follows:

• Portland: 30 participants

• Oregon City: 26 participants

• Salem: 31 participants

• Albany: 16 participants

• Eugene: 73 participants
CHAPTER 4 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

4-1 

Additional Public Outreach Activities

4.1 Online Open House

There was an online open house hosted on ODOT’s Project website available from November 28 to 

December 18, 2018. The purpose of the online event was to:

• Present the Preferred Alternative for the Project.

• Present the findings from the Tier 1 DEIS.

• Provide the opportunity for public comment on the Tier 1 DEIS prior to the selection of the Final

Preferred Alternative by FRA.

A total of 345 people visited the online open house. Of those, 59 provided comments using the online 

open house comment form.

4.2 Online Open House Format

The same information and materials that were presented or displayed during the in-person open house 

and public hearing events were available during the online open house. The online open house had four 

virtual stations:

1) Project Overview – This station included a brief video featuring Oregon State Representative Nancy

Nathanson, who gave an overview of Project considerations and how the public has been informed

and has contributed to the Project to date. Additionally, participants could view a map of the Project

area and read a summary of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

2) Purpose, Need, Goals and Objectives – Information about the Project’s Purpose, Need, Goals and

Objectives was available for review.

3) Alternatives in the Tier 1 DEIS – This station summarized the findings included in the Tier 1 DEIS for

Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and the “no-build” Alternative. This information highlighted station

locations, trip time, accommodation for higher speed, capital costs, ridership, the tradeoffs of

benefits and negative impacts and a summary of land impacts for each of the Alternatives.

4) Next Steps and Feedback – Participants could provide comments in an online open- ended

comment form about the alternatives presented in the Tier 1 DEIS. Commenters could choose to

provide their name and demographic information with their submission.

4.3 Informational Table Events

The Project team hosted informational tables at Union Station in Portland, at the Salem Station 100 Year 

Anniversary Event, and at the Saturday Market in Eugene in September and October 2018. The purpose 

of these events was to promote the public comment period, the five (5) open houses/public hearings 

and the online open house, and to outline the findings included in the Tier 1 DEIS.

Location Date Talked to Project Team Left Comment

Salem 100 Year Anniversary Event September 25 18 0

Eugene Saturday Market October 20 48 11 

Portland Union Station October 23 11 3

Total 77 14 

CHAPTER 5 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

5-1 

Tier 1 DEIS Comments and Responses

5.1 Summary of Comments

Public outreach focused on the findings from the Tier 1 DEIS and the recommended Preferred 

Alternative. Stakeholders and interested members of the public could provide feedback through public 

comment forms at the open house events, online through the website, by email, or by mail. During the 

formal comment period, the Project team received a total of 212 comments from members of the public 

and agency/ organization representatives: 60 via the website comment form, 59 through the online open 

house, 58 at the open house/public hearing events (51 via comment form and nine via public 

testimony), 30 by email and three by mail. These comments are summarized below in two sections: key 

comment topics and other themes. Appendix C includes the original comments received during the 

public comment period. The comments are organized into sections for agency, organization and 

individual communications. Appendix C also includes responses to the comments. 

5.2 Key Comment Topics

5.2.1 Support for Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative.

A total of 86 comment submissions indicated support for Alternative 1, the recommended Preferred 

Alternative.

5.2.1.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• Alternative 1 has a reduced cost to taxpayers as opposed to Alternative 2.

– Participants also noted:

 The need for a reliable funding source.

 The savings may provide potential funding for additional improvements to passenger rail

and other transportation modes.

 The reduced trip time for Alternative 2 does not justify the cost.

• The station locations in Alternative 1 best serve the population and needs of the region.

– Participants also noted:

 The existing stations are historic and have undergone renovations.

 Relocating stations in Alternative 2 would be wasteful and potentially detrimental to the

historic value of these structures.

• Alternative 1 has fewer impacts to the environment, including agricultural lands, wetlands, and

waterways, than Alternative 2.

• Strategic track, signal, and infrastructure improvements will help Alternative 1 serve the region’s

passenger rail needs, as well as address safety issues and conflicts with freight rail.

– Many participants suggested creating a double track along the entire route in the future to fully

alleviate conflicts between passenger rail and freight rail.

• Increased frequency of service and number of trains, as well as adjustments to the passenger rail

schedule and capacity, will help improve ridership.
APRIL 2021 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

5-2 

• Alternative 1 offers more opportunities to scale, phase, and implement track and service

improvements incrementally, including potentially creating high-speed rail in the future.

• Improving multimodal transportation connections with passenger rail will improve the effectiveness

of Alternative 1.

– Some comments suggested offering bike storage on trains and at stations and coordinating with

local transit providers to develop new transit lines, shuttles, and stops to connect to stations.

• Alternative 1 seems like it can be completed sooner, thereby increasing the benefit to the region.

• The current route with the upgrades included in Alternative 1 with the identified upgrades along the

existing track will support economic development and local businesses.

• Ticket prices are already cost-prohibitive for many potential riders. Alternative 2 may increase these

prices.

• The ridership projections in Alternative 1 will help make passenger rail a viable long-term

transportation option.

5.2.2 Frequency, Schedule and Reliability

A total of 63 comment submissions contained input related to improving the frequency, schedule and 

reliability of passenger rail service.

5.2.2.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• Address conflicts between passenger rail and freight rail to ensure reliable service, which in turn will

encourage ridership.

• Develop schedules around rush hours and the needs of the region’s population that rely on public

transportation to commute to their jobs, and offer more early morning and late afternoon/evening

options to increase ridership.

• Increase the frequency of passenger rail to provide more options and better service to the region.

• Delays and disruptions in service discourage riders from relying on passenger rail as their form of

transportation between Portland and Eugene.

• Coordinate with local transit agencies to develop public transit buses, trains, and shuttles that are

timed with passenger rail arrivals and departures to develop a reliable and cohesive system.

5.2.3 Technology, Innovation, Implementation and “Phase-ability”

A total of 50 comment submissions contained input related to passenger rail technology, innovation, 

implementation, and “phase-ability” (the ability to fund and implement the proposed passenger rail 

investments in phases).

5.2.3.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• Passenger rail service will improve greatly with significant infrastructure, track and signal

improvements.

• Improvements to passenger rail need to take into consideration equipment and maintenance

requirements and upgrades to support future innovation and regional needs.
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

5-3 

– Participants also suggested working with Union Pacific to upgrade the existing tracks to Class 5

or 6 to increase speed and performance.

• Be progressive when considering how the route can be improved through innovation and

technology.

– Suggestions for potential innovation included:

 Intercity commuter rail.

 Electric trains powered by solar panels installed along the route.

 Siemens jet-powered single level passenger trains.

 Collaboration with notable innovators and inventors to develop an enduring system.

 Bullet trains.

 Tunnels rather than roadway crossings (included with Alternative 2).

 Double tracks along the entire route (included with Alternative 1).

• The reduced cost and faster implementation of Alternative 1 provides increased opportunity for

funding and time to support technological and innovative improvements in the future, including

moving to higher speed rail.

• Ensure the chosen alternative has the ability to be scaled and implemented incrementally.

• Make investments that will not become obsolete within a short amount of time.

5.2.4 Funding and Cost

A total of 48 comment submissions contained input related to funding and cost.

5.2.4.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• Improvements to passenger rail are needed, but funding is a significant issue. Therefore, Alternative

1 is the best option.

• The current ticket prices are cost-prohibitive and need to be changed to encourage ridership.

– Participants also suggested exploring how to make tickets more affordable by creating family

packages, day/week/month/year passes and low-income fare/passes.

• Consider combining the alternatives to reduce the cost of funding a project as large as Alternative 2,

while still gaining some of the technological benefits.

– Participants suggested using the segment between south Salem and Millersburg from

Alternative 2 combined with the route in Alternative 1.

• Establish a funding plan for incremental improvements.

• The cost of Alternative 2 is not justified by the projected benefits.

5.2.5 Station Locations and Expanding Service

A total of 44 comment submissions suggested expanding service or identified new or existing station 

locations that should be added or maintained.

5.2.5.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• Ensure the station locations serve the population centers and have access to goods and services, i.e.,

food, hotels, grocery stores, etc.

• Maintain service to the existing stations, specifically Eugene and Salem.
APRIL 2021 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

5-4 

• Include Corvallis in the planned service, either by creating a station or providing reliable and

strategically timed shuttles between Corvallis and the nearest station.

• Retain the station in Albany regardless of which alternative is chosen.

• Maintain service to Oregon City and increase ridership through improved schedules, reliability and

frequency.

• Include considerations for broader passenger rail expansion in this process to provide service to

eastern and central Oregon in the future.

• Wilsonville lacks public transportation options and would benefit greatly from the addition of a

station.

• Create a station in Springfield, or if not, improve the public transit connections to the Eugene station

to increase access to/from Springfield.

• Other station locations mentioned in the comment submissionsinclude:

– Woodburn

– Oakridge

– Tualatin

– Keizer

– Junction City

– Canby

– Tigard

– Lake Oswego

– Tangent

– Hillsboro

– McMinnville

– Astoria

– Lebanon

– Mill City

– Harrisburg

– La Grande

– Brooks

5.2.6 High Speed and Speed

A total of 43 comment submissions contained input related to high speed rail or the speed of passenger 

rail in general.

5.2.6.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• The alternatives in the Tier 1 DEIS are not ambitious enough and need to include plans for high

speed rail.

• Alternative 2 offers more opportunities to increase the speed rating of passenger rail.

• Alternative 1 needs to increase speed by a more significant amount.

• Work with Union Pacific to upgrade their existing tracks to allow for higher speeds.

• Develop Alternative 1 so that it can be phased into high-speed rail in the future.

• Decrease the trip time between Eugene and Portland so passenger rail can compete with air and

motor vehicle transportation, and effectively increase ridership.
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

5-5 

• The 120 miles per hour (mph) speed for Alternative 2 seems slow considering the technology that

exists and is in use elsewhere.

5.2.7 Ridership and Capacity

A total of 42 comment submissions provided input related to increasing ridership and capacity of 

passenger rail.

5.2.7.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• Provide transit and multimodal connections between stations and points of interest such as airports

and schools, to increase ridership.

• Provide safe bike storage at stations and on trains to encourage ridership.

• The existing ticket prices are cost prohibitive to some potential riders.

• Improve the safety, maintenance, and cleanliness of stations and trains to encourage ridership.

• Develop schedules around a typical workday, with increased morning and afternoon/evening service

to increase ridership.

5.2.8 Support for Alternative 2

A total of 40 comments provided input related to Alternative 2.

5.2.8.1 Supporting Key Themes:

• Alternative 2 would eliminate conflicts with freight trains (Union Pacific).

• The station locations in Alternative 2 best serve population centers in WillametteValley.

– Interest in having stations in or near Corvallis and Wilsonville because they have few transit

options.

• Alternative 2 is the fastest option.

– This option would reduce congestion on Interstate 5 (I-5), because users would be more likely to

take the faster option.

– Participants also suggested that this would reduce single occupant trips and reduce carbon

emissions.

• The 120 mph speed for Alternative 2 seems slow considering the technology that exists and is in use

elsewhere.

• Make investments that will not become obsolete within a short amount of time.

• Station locations for Alternative 2 should connect to public transit and other transportation options.

• Alternative 2 is the option that works best for the long-term future and innovation of the region.

5.3 Additional Comment Themes

A series of additional comment themes arose from the comment submissions. Fewer comments were 

received on these themes than the key themes described above, but there was sufficient public interest 

in the topics to summarize them in this document. All comments received by the Project team, 

regardless of theme, will be published in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). These themes 

include:
APRIL 2021 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

5-6 

• General concerns about impacts to the environment, such as agricultural lands, wetlands,

waterways, habitats, etc., related to all alternatives (28 comments).

• General support for improved passenger rail regardless of alternative (27 comments).

• Comments regarding how passenger rail can be used as a tool to address climate concerns and

community health issues (23 comments).

• Suggestions for including bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the passenger rail plan (17

comments).

• Comments regarding how passenger rail can be used as a tool for economic development (17

comments).

• Appreciation or comments regarding the Project process, outreach, materials, or public involvement

(16 comments).

• Support for the “No-Build” option (5 comments).

• Concerns about noise issues (4 comments).

• Concerns regarding environmental justice (3 comments).

5.4 Agency and Organization Comments

Agencies, local governments, and organizations submitted a total of 18 comments. The agency

commenters included the EPA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the Oregon Department of 

State Lands (ODSL), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Rail Freight and Ports 

Division, the City of Eugene, the Tangent City Council and Travel Oregon.

A summary of the relevant agency comments (those directly related to the alternatives) is presented 

below; other agency comments were related to process. Comments in the format in which they were 

received are included in Appendix C. 

5.4.1 Agency Comments 

The following agencies commented on the DEIS during the public and agency comment period. The 

agency correspondence is included in this appendix. 

Agency Commenter 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 10

Jill A. Nogi, Manager

Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration

Region 10

Jeremy Borrego

Transportation Program Specialist

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of the Secretary

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Allison O’Brien

Regional Environmental Officer

Oregon Department of State Lands Russ Klassen

Aquatic Resource Coordinator

Washington State Department of Transportation

Rail, Freight and Ports Division

Kirk Fredrickson

Travel Oregon Sara Morrissey
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

5-7 

Agency Commenter 

Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization Paul Thompson 

Program Manager

TriMet Joe Recker

Environmental Permits Coordinator

TriMet Project Development and Permitting

City of Eugene Rob Inerfield

Transportation Planning Manager

City of Eugene – Public Works Engineering 

Tangent City Council Georgia Edwards

City Manager

5.4.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA provided support for Alternative 1 due to maximized use of existing infrastructure and stations and 

avoidance of greenfield development. Additional comments include:

• Recommendation to identify all potential impacts to waterbodies.

• Concern about the acreage of wetlands potentially impacted by Alternative 2.

• Recommendation to build full-span bridge stream crossings to avoid impact to biological resources

within wildlife connections.

• Recommendation to retrofit existing infrastructure to provide hydrological and ecological

connectivity.

• Recommendation to include climate change considerations in the FEIS and notable environmental

impacts should be examined as a part of the NEPA process.

5.4.3 U.S. Department of the Interior

DOI did not explicitly provide support for either alternative. However, the submission expressed concern 

about potential impacts to a variety of endangered species and noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service must be consulted to ensure the Project does not jeopardize these species. Additionally, the 

submission explained that if the Project impacts parks that are funded by the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, it will require approval by the Secretary of the Interior, delegated to the National 

Parks Service.

5.4.4 Oregon Department of State Lands

ODSL did not explicitly provide support for either alternative; however, the submission noted the 

following:

• Delineate and evaluate wetlands and waterways prior to construction.

• Avoid or minimize impacts to water, especially rare and highly valued water resources.

• Mitigate impacts when they cannot be avoided.

5.4.5 WSDOT Rail, Freight and Ports Division

WSDOT did not explicitly provide support for either alternative but did recommend including a 

discussion of a potential passenger rail maintenance facility in Eugene, which would help provide 

flexibility in developing train schedules, better on-time performance and job opportunities.
APRIL 2021 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT

5-8 

5.4.6 Travel Oregon

Travel Oregon provided general support for the Project and noted that they deferred to ODOT and the 

local communities to determine the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, the submission emphasized that 

tourists expect reliable on-time train service if they are going to choose passenger rail over another form 

of transportation.

5.4.7 City of Eugene

The City of Eugene provided support for Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative based on its ability to 

be phased incrementally over time, affordability, and likelihood of completion. The submission noted 

that the City supports providing frequent, more reliable and higher-speed passenger rail in the 

Willamette Valley as a tool for reducing the amount of intercity driving.

Additionally, the City expressed that it is prepared to help implement Alternative 1 by providing upgrades 

to the existing Eugene station and rail sidings, and the construction of a separated passenger-rail track.

5.4.8 Tangent City Council

The Tangent City Council expressed support for either Alternative 2 or the “no-build” option. The 

submission suggested abandoning the Project and instead adding a lane to I-5 to ease congestion, but 

noted that if the Project is to be constructed, it supports Alternative 2. Additional concerns include:

• Project funding.

• How the Project will address congestion on I-5.

• Implementation of new technology and innovation in the future.

• How the Project will increase ridership.

5.4.9 Organization Comments 

5.4.9.1 AORTA

The Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates (AORTA) submitted two comments, both of which 

provided support for Alternative 1 as the recommended Preferred Alternative. Reasons for their support 

include the following:

• The existing route is well established, serves station stops that are known to the public, and serves a

wide portion of Willamette Valley with the opportunity for expansion in the future to southern and

eastern Oregon.

• Higher-speed rail is more feasible at this time than high-speed rail.

• Alternative 1 offers the opportunity to phase into high-speed rail in the future.

• Updates to the existing route with help relieve conflicts with freight.

• The existing route better serves the community and will increase ridership.

5.4.10 Oregon Environmental Council

Oregon Environmental Council expressed support for Alternative 1, noting that it maintains the existing 

alignment and therefore reduces impacts to the environment, preserves the existing stations within city 

centers and provides the opportunity to incrementally phase in new technology and equipment.
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT APRIL 2021 

5-9 

5.4.11 The University of Oregon

The University of Oregon provided support for Alternative 1 as the recommended Preferred Alternative 

based on its ability to support its student and staff needs for transportation between Portland and 

Eugene, and because it has the potential to greatly improve the region’s economic development.

5.4.12 Hector Campbell Neighborhood Association

This neighborhood association in Milwaukie, Oregon, had four questions related to the effects of the 

Project:

• Will there be a sound or retaining wall along the stretch of Railroad Avenue in Milwaukie?

• How much of the present north side right-of-way is needed and will it affect the Railroad Avenue

street layout?

• What effect will the Project have on the current Quiet Zone in Milwaukie?

• What are the impacts to the rail crossing at 37th Avenue in Milwaukie?

5.4.13 Concordia Neighborhood Association

This neighborhood association expressed concern about the length of the Project development process

and, in their view, the limited results. The submission did not support either of the alternatives. The 

neighborhood association’s main objection to the alternatives was that the Project should instead be 

implementing dedicated high-speed rail tracks from Portland south to Salem, Corvallis, Eugene and the 

Rogue Valley, and avoiding using UPRR tracks or placing tracks along I-5.

5.5 Summary of Responses

After reviewing all of the comments received from agencies, organizations, and individuals, ODOT 

responded to each comment. Appendix C contains all of the comments in their original form and a 

matrix of the comments and responses prepared by ODOT. 

Attachment 1 

Public Meeting Information

Copies of presentations and boards

Appendix B: Public and Agency Involvement, Attachment B-1: Public Meeting Materials

Public Hearing Presentation 

OREGON PASSENGER RAIL

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

PUBLIC REVIEW & HEARING
Project Overview

NEPA Process 

Purpose & Need

DEIS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 2

Goals and Objectives

Alternatives 

Alternatives Evaluation

Preferred Alternative 

Stations 

Public Comment 
PROJECT OVERVIEW

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 3

● Studied options for passenger rail service between 

Eugene-Springfield and Portland-Vancouver

● NEPA review informs decision-making regarding:

○ Frequency and speed of rail service

○ Rail route

○ Types of technology to use

○ Station locations
NEPA PROCESS

● National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) considers environmental 

impacts of project

● NEPA ensures stakeholder input is 

incorporated into decision making

Conduct NEPA Scoping

Prepare Draft EIS

Issue Draft EIS

Public Comment 

Period, Public Meetings

Prepare Final EIS

Issue Final EIS

Record of Decision

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 4
DECISION-MAKING & KEY STAKEHOLDERS

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the Lead Agency for the 

project, and will identify a Preferred Alternative in the FEIS and 

document the decision in the Record of Decision issued for the project

● U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): Lead Federal Agency

● Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 5
PUBLIC & AGENCY COORDINATION

Coordination

● Leadership Council

● Community and jurisdictional

groups

● Agency coordination

● Railroad coordination

● Tribal outreach

Outreach Strategies

● Open houses / online meetings

● Community events

● Informational videos

● Website / social media

● News media

● Fact sheets / newsletters

● Surveys

Proactive engagement with interested parties, stakeholders, 

government agencies, and tribes: 

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 6
TIER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

● Tier 1 EIS addresses corridor-level issues

○ Rail alignment 

○ Service improvements

○ Station locations 

● Identifies Preferred Alternative 

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 7
PURPOSE

NEED

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 8
PROJECT PURPOSE

...to improve the frequency, convenience, speed, and reliability of 

passenger rail service in a manner that will:

● Provide riders with an efficient, safe, equitable, and affordable travel 

alternative 

● Be a cost-effective investment 

● Protect freight-rail carrying capability

● Support ongoing implementation of intercity rail in the PNWRC 

● Promote economic development 

● Avoid / minimize community and environmental impacts 

● Integrate with existing and planned transportation networks

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 9
PROJECT NEED

The project needs were identified as:

● Increasing intercity and regional travel demands 

● Limited rail system capacity 

● Constrained state and local roadway funding 

● Safety and security in transportation 

● Transportation demands resulting from demographic changes 

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 10
PURPOSE

NEED

GOALS & 

OBJECTIVES

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 11
GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to 

communities in the Willamette Valley.

Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments in the corridor, 

and maintain safety.

Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain, and operate a costeffective project. 

Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel alternative. 

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 12
GOALS & OBJECTIVES, CONT.

Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail investments planned in 

Washington State.

Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of life for 

communities along the corridor.

Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built environment.

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 13
PURPOSE

NEED

GOALS & 

OBJECTIVES

EVALUATING 

ALTERNATIVES

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 14
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 

1. Develop purpose, needs, goals, & objectives 

2. Develop an evaluation framework 

3. Identify a range of corridor concepts 

4. Screen corridor concepts against purpose and need 

5. Evaluate preliminary alternatives using the evaluation framework 

6. Establish the range of alternatives to be further studied 

7. Publish Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

8. Consider public and agency comments on Draft EIS

9. Select Preferred Alternative 

10.Publish Final Tier 1 EIS and Record of Decision

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 15
Alternative 1 would follow 

existing Amtrak rail route with 

improvements.

Alternative 2 would be a new 

route between Springfield and 

Oregon City and along I-205.

No Action Alternative follows 

Amtrak route with no changes.

DEIS ALTERNATIVES

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 16
HIGH SPEED RAIL (HSR) CONCEPT PLAN 

● Conceptual analysis of HSR conducted as part of EIS 

● Identified ridership and population levels required to support HSR 

● Recommended phased implementation as ridership grows

RIDERSHIP & POPULATION

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 17
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Trip Time: 

Eugene to/from Portland

2 hours, 20 minutes 2 hours, 2 minutes

Accommodate Higher Speeds 

in the future

Maintains current max: 79 mph Max speeds of 120 mph on 

portions 

Capital Costs through 2035 $870 million - $1.025 billion $3.62 - $4.44 billion

Ridership (2035) 739,000 723,000

Maximizes Benefits and 

Reduces Negative Impacts

Higher frequency and ridership; 

improves service to central cities

Higher frequency and ridership; 

but service focused outside 

central cities 

Supports Land Preservation, 

Minimizes Negative Impacts

Lower footprint and construction 

impacts than Alternative 2

New alignment, thus higher rightof-way and environmental 

impacts than Alternative 1

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 18
DEIS ALTERNATIVE STATIONS

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Station Existing or New Station Existing or New

Eugene Existing Springfield New

Albany Existing Albany New

Salem Existing Salem or Keizer New

Oregon City Existing Wilsonville or 

Tulatin

New

Portland’s Union 

Station

Existing Portland’s Union 

Station

Existing

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 19

* The team considered an Albany Option for Alternative 2 which would use the existing station
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 20

Based on comparison of alternatives, FRA and ODOT recommend 

Alternative 1 based on the following features: 

• Improved ridership

• Rail service to central cities

• Reduced environmental impacts 

• Ability to phase implementation

• Lower capital costs
DEIS REVIEW SCHEDULE 

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 21

Announced in Federal Register

Oct. 19

DEIS Public Comment Period

Oct. 19 – Dec. 18

Public Hearing:

Portland 

5-7pm

Nov. 28

Public Hearing:

Oregon City 

4:30-6:30pm

Nov. 29

Public Hearing:

Albany 

5-7pm

Dec. 4

Public Hearing:

Salem 

5-7pm

Dec. 5

Public Hearing:

Eugene 

5-7pm

Dec. 6

DEIS Available at Multiple Locations in the Corridor and on ODOT Website
PROVIDE YOUR DEIS COMMENT 

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 22

Tonight 

Fill out a comment form or give testimony to court reporter

Online Open House

Participate in an online open house between Nov. 28 and Dec. 18, 2018 

(www.oregonpassengerrail.org) 

Email

Send your comments to info@oregonpassengerrail.org

Mail

Comments to Oregon Passenger Rail, 1110 SE Alder St. Suite 301, Portland, 

OR 97241

Contact

Jennifer Sellers, ODOT Passenger Rail Program Manager, (503) 480-5556
NEXT STEPS

CHOOSING A PATH FORWARD 23

Prepare Final EIS 

● Respond to substantive public and agency comments 

● Identify and describe the final selected alternative

Service Development Plan (Implementation Plan)

Pursue Combination of Federal and State Funding
OREGON PASSENGER RAIL

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

PUBLIC REVIEW & HEARING
Appendix B: Public and Agency Involvement, Attachment B-1: Public Meeting Materials

Public Hearing Boards 

Project Overview

205

84

5

5

5

99E

99W

3030

2630

00

20

22

58

99W

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD

PORTLAND

OREGON 

CITY WILSONVILLE

WOODBURN

SALEM

ALBANY

HARRISBURG

CORVALLIS

JUNCTION CITY

TUALATIN

VANCOUVER

58

Study Area

Current Alignment

Current station

Legend

The project studied options to 

improve passenger rail service 

between Eugene-Springfield and 

Portland-Vancouver, Washington.

This area is part of the Pacific 

Northwest Rail Corridor, which 

extends from Eugene, Oregon, 

to Vancouver, British Columbia. It 

is designated as a regional highspeed rail corridor.

The project team is conducting 

a National Environmental Policy

Act environmental review to

decide:

» Service characteristics

and frequency.

» Rail alignment.

» Technology.

» Station locations.
Oregon Passenger Rail 

and NEPA

Oregon received a Federal grant from the Federal 

Railroad Administration for the Oregon Passenger 

Rail study, which means the project is following the 

National Environmental Policy Act process:

» Analysis and reporting are required for all 

negative and positive environmental impacts — 

including cultural, natural and social.

» The public (you!) will be involved to help us 

make informed decisions.

A Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement:

» Addresses broad corridor-level issues 

(rail alignment, service improvements and 

communities with stations).

» Concludes with a decision on a “Final

Preferred Alternative.”

» Requires additional environmental studies 

before any construction can begin.
Project Purpose

The purpose of the Oregon Passenger Rail project 

is to improve the frequency, convenience, speed and 

reliability of passenger rail service along the Oregon 

segment of the Federally designated Pacific Northwest 

Rail Corridor in a manner that will:

» Provide riders an efficient, safe, equitable and 

affordable alternative to highway, bus and air travel.

» Be a cost-effective investment.

» Protect freight-rail carrying capability.

» Support the ongoing implementation of regional highspeed intercity passenger rail between the EugeneSpringfield metropolitan area and Vancouver, British 

Columbia.

» Be compatible with the Washington State portion of 

the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor.

» Promote economic development.

» Avoid or minimize community and environmental 

impacts.

» Integrate with existing and planned multimodal 

transportation networks.
The Purpose and Need statement is the foundation of 

the Oregon Passenger Rail project. The statement was 

developed based on input from the public, stakeholders 

and the Leadership Council.

Project Need

Multiple transportation, land use, socioeconomic and 

environmental considerations drive the need for this 

project:

» Increasing intercity and regional travel demands.

» Limited rail system capacity and competing service 

needs.

» Constrained state and local roadway funding.

» Increased economic vitality of the corridor.

» Promoting transportation system safety and security.

» Changing transportation demand resulting from 

demographic changes.

The entire Purpose and Need statement can be found on the project website:

www.OregonPassengerRail.org.
Goals and Objectives

» Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and 

accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley.

Objectives:

1A – Provide a viable alternative to auto, air and bus travel between Eugene 

and Vancouver, WA.

1B – Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail service.

1C – Support multimodal integration at each passenger rail station.

1D – Allow for future passenger rail improvements, including higher speeds.

» Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments 

in the corridor, and maintain safety.

Objectives:

2A – Does not increase conflicts between passenger rail or freight rail and 

vehicles.

2B – Protect freight-rail carrying capability.

» Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain and 

operate a cost-effective project. 

Objectives:

3A – Develop a strategy that can be reasonably funded and leveraged with 

range of investment tools for construction and operation.

3B – Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested.

» Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel 

alternative.

Objectives:

4A – Provide a viable and affordable alternative for all travelers.

4B – Provide equitable investments and service, with consideration to race/

ethnicity and income.
Goals and Objectives

» Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail 

investments planned in Washington State.

Objectives:

5A – Provide passenger rail service to meet existing and future passenger rail 

demand for an interconnected system in the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor.

» Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of 

life for communities along the corridor.

Objectives:

6A – Benefit communities within the corridor.

6B – Minimize negative impacts to communities along the corridor.

» Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built 

environment.

Objectives:

7A – Support Oregon’s commitment to the preservation of resource lands and 

local land use and transportation planning.

7B – Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of national and state policies 

to slow climate change.

7C – Avoid and minimize impacts to the natural environment and cultural 

resources.

The goals and objectives were used as the basis 

for evaluating the alternatives. Alternatives that 

better meet goals and objectives score higher in the 

evaluation.
H o w alt er n ati v es

w er e n arr o w e d

1. D e v el o p P ur p o s e a n d N e e d, al o n g wit h g o al s a n d 

o bj e cti v e s.

2. D e v el o p a n e v al u ati o n fr a m e w or k.

3. I d e ntif y a br o a d 

r a n g e of c orri d or 

c o n c e pt s.

4. S cr e e n c orri d or 

c o n c e pt s a g ai n st 

P ur p o s e a n d N e e d.

5. E v al u at e pr eli mi n ar y 

alt er n ati v e s u si n g t h e 

e v al u ati o n crit eri a ( b a s e d 

o n g o al s a n d o bj e cti v e s).

6. N arr o w t h e r a n g e of 

alt er n ati v e s f or f urt h er st u d y.

7. P u bli s h Dr aft Ti er 1 

E n vir o n m e nt al I m p a ct St at e m e nt.

8. S el e ct Pr ef err e d Alt er n ati v e.

9. P u bli s h Fi n al Ti er 1 

E n vir o n m e nt al I m p a ct 

St at e m e nt.

R O U T E S S E R VI C E S T A TI O N S

7.

W e ar e 

h er e!
Alternative 1 follows 

the existing Amtrak 

Cascades passenger rail 

route with track, signal 

and communication 

improvements.

Alternative 2 is primarily 

a new route between 

Springfield and Oregon 

City along Interstate 5, an 

existing freight rail line and 

Interstate 205. It would 

follow the existing alignment 

north of Oregon City.

No Action Alternative

follows existing Amtrak route 

with no additional service or 

improvements.

The Draft Alternatives

Two “build” alternatives and a no-build alternative analyzed in 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are shown below. 

The project’s Leadership Council recommended Alternative 1 

as the Preferred Alternative.
» Cost estimates are planning-level construction and engineering estimates and do not 

include ongoing operations or maintenance costs. Costs are in 2015 dollars.

» Estimated travel times assume stops at five stations (same as existing service). Each 

additional stop would add time. 

» The current scheduled travel time from Portland to Eugene is 2 hours, 35 minutes.

The two “build” alternatives and related options were evaluated using 

the project goals and objectives.

Notes:

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Passenger rail trip time: 

Eugene to/from Portland 2 hours, 20 minutes 2 hours, 2 minutes

Ability to accommodate 

higher speeds in the 

future

Maintains current 

maximum speed (79 mph)

Maximum speeds of 120 

mph on portions of new 

alignment

Capital costs through 

2035 (2015 dollars) $870 million-$1.025 million $3.62 billion-$4.44 billion

Ridership (2035) 739,000 723,000

Produces benefits and 

minimizes negative 

impacts

Higher frequency and 

ridership; improves service 

to central cities

Higher frequency and 

ridership, but service 

focused outside central 

cities

Support preservation of 

land, avoid and minimize 

negative impacts

Lower footprint and 

construction impacts than 

Alternative 2

New alignment, thus 

higher right-of-way and 

environmental impacts than 

Alternative 1

Performance Comparisons
2018 2019

Station Activity
2018

OUTREACH

Publish Final Tier 1 Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision, and Respond to Public 

Comment

Key milestone

Public outreach, including in-person and/or online 

open houses, and other outreach efforts such as 

newsletters, website updates, online surveys, email 

blasts and news releases. These efforts will inform 

Leadership Council deliberations.

2019

OUTREACH

Select Final Preferred Alternative

Public Hearing on Draft Tier 1

Environmental Impact Statement

Public Review of Draft Tier 1

Environmental Impact Statement (60 days)

Review and Consider Public Comment

Next Steps
Ways to Comment

» Submit a comment form or give 

testimony tonight.

» Participate in our online open house 

through Dec. 18:

www.OregonPassengerRail.org

» Mail a comment:

Oregon Passenger Rail, 1110 SE Alder St. Suite 301,

Portland, OR 97214

» Email: info@oregonpassengerrail.org.

» Contact ODOT:

Jennifer Sellers, ODOT Rail and Public Transit

(503) 480-5556

Jennifer.Sellers@odot.state.or.us

During the Open Comment Period 

through Dec. 18:

ODOT and the Federal Railroad Administration will 

review all comments and testimony. Responses will 

appear in the final Environmental Impact Statement.